Google's Launch Of Google + Is, Once Again, Deeply Embarrassing -- Facebook Must Be Rolling Its Eyeshttp://www.businessinsider.com/google-plus-launch-embarrassing-2011-6/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Fri, 09 Dec 2016 13:54:35 -0500Henry Blodgethttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2ddc42ecad046740000011boiseMon, 25 Jul 2011 17:12:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2ddc42ecad046740000011
Google has plenty of resources, if they listen they will make it a success. It is their best interest. Hopefully they will isten like apple and get creative like adobe. At this point it looks much the same, just differenthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2cb4164bd7c8bc79020000Carsen YatesSun, 24 Jul 2011 20:08:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2cb4164bd7c8bc79020000
Google hasn't stepped into the social networking field because it already owns the internet, every time people ask a question they use Google, now they have a social network that is better than Facebook, especially because Facebook's recent updates aren't making people very happy, it was bound to happen, and it is: Facebook is slowly dying, and Google with it's great integrity is finally going to try at making an actual social network, not just a Gmail App like Buzz. Personally, I think Facebook got lucky, the movie "The Social Network" sort of hints at that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e288a34ccd1d5fa32140000professorrosadoThu, 21 Jul 2011 16:21:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e288a34ccd1d5fa32140000
Well, to the defense of the author of this article, Henry Blodget, I concur with his posit in one aspect. In previous Google attempts (mentioned in many of the comments above) i.e. wave and buzz et al., being significantly viable and forward looking products in their own right (conceptually at least), what has been the result?
Google has, by all measurement, the best chance of making great foundation setting social & informational platforms for the forseeable future. However, its past attempts have met with either fumbling on their part or in condescension to (to the most part) an uneducated marketplace. This has made their brilliant offerings (and launches) to suffer from the perception of failure and "embarassment". What is truly embarassing is that with all that Google has tried to put out in the past (and still have under their belts), it has still to come foward in a decisive move to take what is rightfully theirs - the internet's social ethos.
I was greatly disaapointed at Wave, in particular, for not taking the place it should have. I even announced that its core technology would be the catharsis of a facebook competitor (and I still hope that G+ is in fact that) however, if this flops too we will all know why!
The Internet, as the whole human race, needs a concise forward looking catalyst to usher in an advancement in our cumulative social cognition and our evolutionary imperatives in order to vie for our very survival. Google stands in the breach - definitely not facebook.
We don't want Google to fail in this, but will they do as they have done before with Buzz and Wave? If they do, then the author called this one right on the head! I think that Google needs to take a very careful assessment and listen to the human soul of the Internet. The thinkers at Google need to take hold of their wits and run with this ball - if they fumble, then we still await the savior!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2812cbcadcbbb411230000GermánThu, 21 Jul 2011 07:51:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2812cbcadcbbb411230000
That's ironic he complains at current social networks forcing you to be public when Google forces you to link your Picasa photos if you want to open a Google+ account...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e25baf04bd7c8f46f0f0000TikiTue, 19 Jul 2011 13:12:16 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e25baf04bd7c8f46f0f0000
Wow, what a terrible article. I want the last 5 minutes of my life back.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2575ec49e2aed673250000AnimeshTue, 19 Jul 2011 08:17:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e2575ec49e2aed673250000
Guess u have been proven wrong! Google plus users > 10Million...in a beta....and more switching from ugly facebook. In a few years, facebook will be poor man's googleplushttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e249733ccd1d5ff1b1e0000Jonathan JacobsMon, 18 Jul 2011 16:27:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e249733ccd1d5ff1b1e0000
I love it how @Henry posted his comment using his Facebook log in.... LMAO...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1d86cd4bd7c86d1e180000AndrewIonttonWed, 13 Jul 2011 07:51:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1d86cd4bd7c86d1e180000
i think some one is a tad upset because he hasn't received an invite.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e198a5dccd1d5de43070000Bob,Boulder, ColoradoSun, 10 Jul 2011 07:17:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e198a5dccd1d5de43070000
"8. Something people have no choice but to use. "
Dave Winer is a nonsensical idiot, people have choice, bing and yahoo. Dave Winer must be another paid facebook flunky. And the cost of switching is something even Dave Winer look forward to, it is zero.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e162c9249e2ae0650010000Eliot SpitzerThu, 07 Jul 2011 18:00:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e162c9249e2ae0650010000
At first glance, seeing you write anything about internet companies is like listening to a "greatest hits of the dotcom boom." Go back to 1998 where people still valued your opinions (as asinine as they may have been...though Creed was always pretty asinine and I think he made it onto a greatest hits album).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e162b2f49e2ae274c080000Eliot SpitzerThu, 07 Jul 2011 17:54:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e162b2f49e2ae274c080000
I'm so glad you saw the error of your ways Ashley! I was about to explain to you how moronic your comments were since google+ does integrate with your gmail inbox and in fact is far less clunky than facebook (all things you would have known if you had actually tried google+ which I'm sure from your revision means you have now done...congrats on the invite btw).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e162a5649e2ae6c430f0000Ashley MeyerThu, 07 Jul 2011 17:51:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e162a5649e2ae6c430f0000
I hereby rescind all my previous remarks.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1629c249e2ae2b4c000000Eliot SpitzerThu, 07 Jul 2011 17:48:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1629c249e2ae2b4c000000
@kkd ahahaha...you read my mind. henry, just because you've had your license stripped doesn't mean you can forget the cardinal rule of second rate analysts: always cover your ass. If you had waited just a day or two to publish this article you would have realized how many people already love G+ and never had to suffer the persecution you're getting right now in this comments section (notice how comments in support of you are voted down and ones that mock you are voted up?).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1322beccd1d559390a0000KangaruhsTue, 05 Jul 2011 10:42:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1322beccd1d559390a0000
I'm sorry you're getting such a lashing in the comments, but I find myself thumbs-upping the people lashing you.
I don't think you get why Google is using the "sharing is broken" language. On Facebook I have way too many friends, nearly 300, because it is expected that you friend everyone you know. In real life, I hardly have 100 people that are either family, actual friends, or colleagues/coworkers. Since I'm already using Google+, I can tell you that the circles function is not only slick and intuitive, but makes it extremely easy to focus on only those people that actually matter to me, and not annoy my family with my smartphone obsession, or annoy my friends with my family reunion photos.
In other words, sharing IS broken on FaceBook, because the current norm is to share everything with everyone. Sure, the option exists to make "groups", but they are difficult to manage (sources are everywhere saying this) and FaceBook has a vested interest in you sharing as much as possible to as many people as possible (larger word of mouth chain).
In real life, we have our public selves and our private selves. FaceBook pushes hard for you to always be your public self. Google+ is nicely crafted to allow for both types of interaction.
But, I get it: you write a controversial article to get the view count, keep your job, etc. I just think your article, while having a provocative title, is sorely lacking in actual thought.
IMO.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e131dce49e2ae2656000000KangaTue, 05 Jul 2011 10:21:02 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e131dce49e2ae2656000000
+1http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e12b73fccd1d55508000000Dana Marshall ZerbeTue, 05 Jul 2011 03:03:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e12b73fccd1d55508000000
I could not have said it better. I feel like Fox News just started writing for this website.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e12b6e5cadcbb2c76770000Dana Marshall ZerbeTue, 05 Jul 2011 03:01:57 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e12b6e5cadcbb2c76770000
Do you get paid to write?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e12b5984bd7c8f325000000Dana Marshall ZerbeTue, 05 Jul 2011 02:56:24 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e12b5984bd7c8f325000000
This article contained no facts about Google plus at all. All I got from it is that you don't like Google.
I guess there's no point in explaining what features about this new social network are good and which are bad when you can just give us your opinion.
Thank you for not wasting our times with details. I'm sure we wouldn't have been smart enough to make our own decisions.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1192ed4bd7c8473f0a0000Paul John GioioMon, 04 Jul 2011 06:16:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1192ed4bd7c8473f0a0000
@Henry Blodget
I honestly don't beleive that you could write such an embarrasing article. My 10 year old nephew has more insight into Google Plus than you do. Seriously, what are you talking about?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1004974bd7c8e161350000sizzlerSun, 03 Jul 2011 01:56:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e1004974bd7c8e161350000
It's nonsense Henry.
G is page after page of rip off search optimised sites for people who don't know about Ask Jeeves.
FB is a teenage gabble machine and gap year photo album for the current crop but not the next one.
I've seen the website that is going to change everything. Quite honestly it was an "OMG thats it, that's the future, that's what the web is for" moment.
It's in testing, getting the kinks ironed out, and the guy has 2 others in early development that are equally stunning. They don't clash with existing sites or replace them. They are something completely different and while each stands on it's own, they naturally fit together and build each other.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0d226f4bd7c8d0160b0000German FreiwaldThu, 30 Jun 2011 21:27:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0d226f4bd7c8d0160b0000
I think this part of your article is funny:
Here's how products like this are conceived:
1. We need to kill Facebook.
2. What will we do.
3. It can't just be Facebook.
4. No one will use that.
5. It has to be better.
6. It has to be something only we can do.
7. Some place where we have the advantage.
8. Something people have no choice but to use.
So if you're Microsoft in 1999, you bake it into Windows.
If you're Google in 2011, you bake it into search.
The reason I think it's funny is because FB's conception went much the same way:
Here's how FB was conceived:
1. We need to kill MySpace.
2. What will we do.
3. It can't just be MySpace.
4. No one will use that.
5. It has to be better.
6. It has to be something only we can do.
7. Some place where we have the advantage.
8. Being in Harvard is allows us a lot of privilege.
So if you're Microsoft in 1999, you bake it into Windows.
If you're Zuck in 2004, you bake it into the exclusive and elitist Ivy system that you are a part of.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0d11ea49e2aef24e1a0000Rob HThu, 30 Jun 2011 20:16:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0d11ea49e2aef24e1a0000
Agreeing with this. It fixes almost everything that's wrong with Facebook, and I for one think it looks better. Privacy, groups and sharing options are years ahead of FB and I love the clean interface which does away with all the bloat we've come to expect from FB. I'm really looking forward to seeing how this pans out.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0c96aecadcbb95051a0000Richard Neil IlaganThu, 30 Jun 2011 11:30:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0c96aecadcbb95051a0000
I seriously find it difficult to bring myself to see the points you're making regarding the Google+ launch being a failure. The only "failure" I see here is how Google is seemingly lacking the resources to respond to all the people wanting to get in the service in the first place. And that, in itself, is actually a very, very good indicator of success, albeit a little ironic.
I can't help getting the feeling that you're clutching at straws here. You state that Vic speaks as if "social networking had yet to be invented". His statement, personally, makes it sound like they think no one has done social networking __completely right__ before -- which is primarily the reason why Google is jumping into the fray anyway.
Google has done a great job of highlighting the stuff "social networking" as we know it lacks.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0c7e4acadcbb8e5f040000JisaanThu, 30 Jun 2011 09:46:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0c7e4acadcbb8e5f040000
"If they can find a way to work it into the Google experience without forcing people to sign up for it, maybe it can work."
They tried that with Buzz, and it didn't take long for someone to file a class-action lawsuit against them for violating their privacy policy, not to mention federal wiretap laws.
If Google is going to pull this off, they need to address the primary concern people have had with Facebook: Privacy. As such, I really don't see how your analysis could be any more wrong.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b9caacadcbbfb65030000Dexter MorganWed, 29 Jun 2011 17:44:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b9caacadcbbfb65030000
We'll they're all saying it... hope you buy yourself something pretty with $FB for writing this embarrassing article ...
Look closely... we're all rolling our eyes............ at you!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b6afaccd1d5e118200000bluedaveWed, 29 Jun 2011 14:12:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b6afaccd1d5e118200000
Henry: Never apologize for having a strong point of view. @Henry Blodgethttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b4061ccd1d51152190000Bruno M. KebranWed, 29 Jun 2011 11:10:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b4061ccd1d51152190000
"they have the lowest Customer satisfaction of almost any popular tech product" Cmon who cares. Does 700 million users mean anything? What makes a good product? Is it bloggers saying so, or customers adopting it...We know what happened to buzz. It will get to + too. Lets face it....facebook is too big for anyone else in the market to matter...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b1827ccd1d5940a0a0000EdgeWed, 29 Jun 2011 08:18:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b1827ccd1d5940a0a0000
Facebook is also filled with “brilliant people” and so are many other organizations. Better, equal or less I don’t see people moving their entire established friend networks because Google + is subjectively “better”.
People like familiarity, routine, and are often too lazy to learn something new even if it is Google. Google should try however not bet their future on social networking.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b164c49e2ae74401e0000FistulaWed, 29 Jun 2011 08:10:52 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b164c49e2ae74401e0000
Circles is new -- FB must be kicking themselves that they didn't pull their finger out on that one.
Competition is good, as long as the companies remember to help us not hinder us -- allow free exchange of info between the platforms and let them slug it out on value added, not on raw number of users -- I should be able to try G+ and still interact with FB and vice versa. Not that they will.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b1403cadcbb5c010e0000agbrowneWed, 29 Jun 2011 08:01:07 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0b1403cadcbb5c010e0000
This market desperately needs a credible competitor to Facebook. Google is credible; and Google + seems to have gotten the main features right.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0af769cadcbb734c110000brandontrewWed, 29 Jun 2011 05:59:05 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0af769cadcbb734c110000
hahaha. Talk about shameless self-promotion. No offense, but onlymeworld looks like a really really bad 90's dating site. Or russian bride site. You should also get your facts straight about the data collected by both companies. Don't make assumptions. I would trust my data with Google and Facebook over any small company, firstly because they have the security engineers required to protect it, and secondly because even the tiniest infringement or abuse of user data would lead to exodus. Small startups aren't put under this kind of pressure, and so can make as many mistakes as they like.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aeb29ccd1d51842170000BuntyWed, 29 Jun 2011 05:06:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aeb29ccd1d51842170000
Henry, the manner it was introduced to adwords users was even worse:
" Here’s how the +1 button works:
Let’s say you own a hotel in Madrid. Brian had a lovely stay at your hotel last summer. When Brian starts researching accommodations for his next trip to Spain, he searches on Google while signed into his Google account, and sees your ad. He clicks the +1 button on the ad to recommend it to his contacts."
Now why would Brian be searching for hotels in Spain for his next trip if he had such a great experience the first time? Even if only to leave feedback, poor Brian has to go back and search for the same keyword, hope it shows up the same ad, and then click on the +1 button!
As a long time adwords user, this leaves me worse than cold: it leaves me wondering if Google has lost its mojo on its only monetarily successful product.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ade36ccd1d5102d0b0000TEKWed, 29 Jun 2011 04:11:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ade36ccd1d5102d0b0000
have you even gotten your hands on it and used it? if not, then you are an over-zealous moron for writing such a critically one-sided piece on something you have very little working knowledge of, beyond reading a public blog post.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0adb27ccd1d52325230000TEKWed, 29 Jun 2011 03:58:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0adb27ccd1d52325230000
AMEN.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ad817cadcbb4d1c010000Larry WuWed, 29 Jun 2011 03:45:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ad817cadcbb4d1c010000
"greatest hits of 10 years of social." I love this one.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ad2d249e2ae6732190000Justin TimeWed, 29 Jun 2011 03:22:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ad2d249e2ae6732190000
Hey, I'm glad to see you think I have weak arguments. Interesante how you provided none for why my arguments are weak and lame. (Do you like my use of spanish there? It must mean I am cultured...or illiterate).
Here's a product you could use: Google dictionary. Self aggrandizing means to promote oneself, which I don't even think I mentioned. I was critical on the article without ever saying I personally could do better but rather that another product for a company I don't work for has potential to be superior considering the satisfaction rate with Facebook is so low and Facebook is riddled with problems considering their high valuation.
And bombastic, wow what a nice word you learned, ever think it was written in the same tone of the article on purpose? That might be too difficulto for you to pick up though. But at least I used mac-o-lite (wth) wording.
And I'm glad you have huge amounts of vc cash, but I don't remember you needing to build a product for your argument to be valid. Otherwise 99.9% of the world couldn't criticize any tech product you moron. And if I do launch the product I am working on, I am smart and capable enough to go get funding on my own without some random forum troll who can hardly put together a sentence without. excessive ;and unnecessary punctuation.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0acfdccadcbbe9083d0000solipsismWed, 29 Jun 2011 03:10:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0acfdccadcbbe9083d0000
Circles combats one of the major issues I've had with social networking sites. Good job.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ac365cadcbb65760c0000radikalWed, 29 Jun 2011 02:17:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0ac365cadcbb65760c0000
It irritates me that this is written with a bit of smugness. You write that facebook was done 7 years ago... think that stopped gmail from doing its thing? Email had been rampant for a number of years prior!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aaf494bd7c83879330000SharonWWed, 29 Jun 2011 00:51:21 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aaf494bd7c83879330000
Yeah, I gotta admit my shock at all the negative headlines here when every other tech site seemed pleasantly surprised and those who commented on all those sites were overwhelmingly enthusiastic, including the iPhone owners over at Tech Crunch who were bummed that there isn't yet an approved app for that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aa518ccd1d5834b260000thembaforumWed, 29 Jun 2011 00:07:52 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aa518ccd1d5834b260000
Myspace had an interesting UI, looking almost Metro UI (Windows 7 Mobile) but with a lot of originality especially with the fully customizable pages (take a look at Tila's to see just what it can do) but I agree Google + with its circle idea is just as good.
Short FB.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aa25949e2aeff50060000Soroshnikov@Koch.govTue, 28 Jun 2011 23:56:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0aa25949e2aeff50060000
100% (plus or minus 1) agree with your overall positions... despite your lame weak written arguments and bombastic self-agrandizing mac-o-lite-like wording.
But,: If you have actually done anything truly interesante yourself in the software space, tell us. I and many others who read this site have access to huge amounts of vc cash. We could make you rich if you aren't a total BS do-nothing yapper. You might actually get it so mows your chance to bring it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a9f19ccd1d5ff410f0000thembaforumTue, 28 Jun 2011 23:42:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a9f19ccd1d5ff410f0000
The real question is -
1. when will the FB bubble pop? The kids are tiring of it already,, realize that using their real name is not such a great idea, and some of those 700 million account holders rarely login at all.
2. Why didn't Google buy myspace? It looks good already (even on mobile - try it) and has a bunch of useful tools (music, video, tv, movies, groups, forums, privacy settings that work - and just needs a boost.
3. I'll call it now - FB will be a shadow of its former self in less than 5 years.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a9cd849e2ae6e3e1e0000kkdTue, 28 Jun 2011 23:32:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a9cd849e2ae6e3e1e0000
Hey Blowjet,
Man, you got kicked out of the securities industry for your third grade sensationalist, shallow and blatantly false analysis and now you are doing to same crap at BI. Some of us know you from your Amazon days -- you were full of *hit then and you are full of it now too.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a906dccd1d5c128280000kyoungjin_moonTue, 28 Jun 2011 22:39:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a906dccd1d5c128280000
I think the title of the head-line of your article is so aggressive and which could cause a misunderstanding.
In fact, there were so many social-related products in at least past 10 years like Facebook, and the concepts of the social networking have been developed and progressed step by step depending on the needs of customers or merket environments, but most of such company didn't succeed and disappeared in out memories. And Facebook is just modifying and advancing the concepts created by such companies previously. In such point of view, it seems Google is launching another different producthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a8dab49e2aed61e060000Ashley MeyerTue, 28 Jun 2011 22:27:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a8dab49e2aed61e060000
If Google wants to break into social, they'll need to find something that Facebook's not already doing, and then do that, instead of replicating every single Facebook feature and tacking on spiffy privacy settings (and making it clunkier). How about integrating my gmail inbox or something?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a77deccd1d50e7f0c0000brendasTue, 28 Jun 2011 20:54:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a77deccd1d50e7f0c0000
Circles is exactly how your social contacts should be organized. I have to imagine Facebook is in absolute panic mode to come up with something in answer to Google+.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a613249e2ae763c0c0000Justin TimeTue, 28 Jun 2011 19:18:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a613249e2ae763c0c0000
You are an embarrassment to writing Henry Blodget. You are clearly a facebook fanboy and neglect to mention any facts. Great, facebook has 700m users, including me, but they have the lowest customer satisfaction of almost any popular tech product.
They also have a horrible user experience and are only successful because there is no alternative. Instead of trashing a new technology geared at new features (video chatting, easy to use group selection, and potentially better integration with other technologies like Google Docs, Android, and Youtube) you stupidly bash it with little to say. Facebook was really original too! MySpace, Friendster, and 5 other networks never came first...
Facebook is a subpar technical product and is now leveraging the size of its platform rather than the quality to garner new users. Something like that is a monopoly and bad for the consumer and a competitor in that field is very healthy.
And by the way, speaking of originality, what did facebook come up with first? Was it a social network? (oops MySpace) Was it a photo sharing app? (oops instagram) Was it groups (oops Google Circles). Was it Facebook Offers? (oops Groupon). I can't believe your articles get picked up, you are infecting the population with your subpar and uninformed intellect.
Google has been an industry leader for a long time and used its superior technical ability and minimalistic design to stay on top. It doesn't simply leverage the fact that it has users so you have to jump on board. Facebook can hardly coordinate a single person chat without it breaking. And please, lets not get started on company ethics. The original idea was stolen and on top of it ran a slander campaign against a fairly ethical online company despite all of its shortcomings. Didn't all 10 of the top 10 apps steal your information and were simply put on probation? Didn't they leak 100m people's information? Didn't they have a bug where you could access other people's chat histories (even though I couldn't access my own at the time)? They are a technically ill-equipped company and have proved it with failure after failure for years.
I am glad a veteran will show up.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a5a46cadcbbe949080000theduderTue, 28 Jun 2011 18:48:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a5a46cadcbbe949080000
Contextual sharing could be pretty powerful. Not sure why you are trashing thishttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a583bcadcbbee47100000WaffaTue, 28 Jun 2011 18:39:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a583bcadcbbee47100000
Ok, maybe not so dramatic. But you do know it's all possible,
/me forget that one is again not in his home base..
html5 will also helphttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a57cccadcbb1844110000WaffaTue, 28 Jun 2011 18:38:04 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a57cccadcbb1844110000
There is still chance for f to survive with in next years. Sift comes fast actually, it's not hard to imagine what methods will be used to get all fb users notified about this new cool product, over and over againhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a565fcadcbb0946000000Franz CalderónTue, 28 Jun 2011 18:31:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a565fcadcbb0946000000
I completely agree with you. Google has got all these great services (Gmail, Youtube, Reader). If they were all integrated in one single, user-friendly experience, it would be the next best thing online. As other article in BI ("Google Plus Looks Like Everything Else", by Matt Rosoff) states, it's like many other already existing services, except that they'll be integrated into one collaborative experience.
Maybe it's not the "WOW-that's-something-new" experience we all dream of, but hey, who has done that? There's nothing new under the sun. And the integration with the search engine is an obvious step to make it popular. I seriously doubt the guys at facebook are rolling their eyes. If they're at all smart, they must be preparing something new for their network as of NOW. Actually, the article in Wired stated that they were somewhat afraid that Google could kill them if they allowed people to migrate easily from facebook. Google says that they'll be keeping the efforts up with +.
Also, if the launch was THAT terrible, how come there's so many people excited about this? This article seems to come from a Google hater.
*Excuse my imperfect post. English is not my native language.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a53a5cadcbb2a42000000GeorgeVTue, 28 Jun 2011 18:20:21 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a53a5cadcbb2a42000000
Sorry, but if you can't see how AWESOME Google+ is and how it solves every single issue that breaks Facebook right now, then I don't know why you're writing on SAI.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a4a6accd1d5f435150000leedelaTue, 28 Jun 2011 17:40:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a4a6accd1d5f435150000
Looks like the negative opinions are outpacing the positive ones out in the blogosphere. Here's a rundown of what influential bloggers and publications (including this one) have to say about Google+: <a href="http://leedela.com/2011/06/28/google-1-technopundits-weigh-in/" target="_blank">http://leedela.com/2011/06/28/google-1-technopundits-weigh-in/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a47a0cadcbb132a0c0000BrettSFTue, 28 Jun 2011 17:29:04 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a47a0cadcbb132a0c0000
Do you think that will be more useful than Hurdles? It is a "cooler" app but I could see using something like Hurdles more to coordinate with friends to meet while walking around, catching muni, etc. Video chat requires real time constant attention, so don't think I'd use it much unless I wasn't mobile.
I hope all these potential mobile apps are available right away on IOS. I'm thinking about switching to an android phone, but not enough people are going to use G+ unless it's functional on both.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a42ff4bd7c86b48260000Jason MarsTue, 28 Jun 2011 17:09:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a42ff4bd7c86b48260000
Full disclosure: I used to work for Google, and may very well again sometime in the future. However, I've always been a huge critic of the moves they've made that I though weren't good. This time around, I think they've made a brilliant move with +. Facebook should be concerned.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a4197cadcbb2f210a0000Jason MarsTue, 28 Jun 2011 17:03:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a4197cadcbb2f210a0000
Even as an opinion piece, it undeniably lacks substance and merit. Give me something more than "the wording used in the release is embarrassing and sounds like Microsoft." The embarrassing qualifier isn't even explained well, just sounds like an attack of some sort. I'd just expect something better from SAI. Actually, I probably shouldn't attribute it to SAI too much, just Henry.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3edeccd1d56722140000GuhTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:51:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3edeccd1d56722140000
In other news, tech blogger Henry Blodget has resorted to naming every article Giant Boobs, Free Beer.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3d3849e2aee365090000Billy HeywoodTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:44:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3d3849e2aee365090000
Man a lot of hostility from Google employees claiming not to be actual Google employees. Relax guys. Henry is not Walter Cronkite, he's not the AP Newswire. This is an opinion piece and don't dismiss an opinion piece simply because you don't share the same view.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a39b4cadcbba015040000hugo penmirTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:29:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a39b4cadcbba015040000
I agree with u 100%http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3900ccd1d5b318140000Scott HTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:26:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3900ccd1d5b318140000
Normally I think it's in bad taste to link to an equivalent article on another site, but in this case they really aren't equivalent, as the techcrunch article is actually journalism.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a386949e2ae0e591d0000Scott HTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:24:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a386949e2ae0e591d0000
And as a final point - how did you expect Google to market this new initiative?
"Google+, it's pretty much like everything else out there, just a little different and from Google"???
Seriously, all you can do in a marketing push is try to show that a product will meet the needs of prospective customers (which means covering a lot of retread ground) and then laying out the distinguishing features that should cause customers to pick your product. And that's exactly what they do.
Honestly, I recommend articles from BI sometimes to associates, but this sort of article makes me embarrassed to have sent colleagues here.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a369ccadcbbb211000000Scott HTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:16:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a369ccadcbbb211000000
This was a sad article. Product launches are marketing, plain and simple. Moreover, social networks aren't really marketed straight at tech-savvy power users, they need the friends, family members, and coworkers of those power users. Given the target audience their marketing pitch makes sense to me...it's certainly not clear how it is embarrassing to Google.
By the way, Bing may suck outside of image search (at least I'm not a fan), but their marketing of it as a "decision engine" is excellent, as true or not it creates a problem ("other" search engines give you so many responses it's incoherent) and claim to provide a solution (Bing will get you the result you're looking for, no trawling through lists trying to find it!).
The marketing push on Google+ is very similar, and very smart IMO. It's widely held to be true that Facebook groups are AWFUL. Even power users can have a hard time setting up and maintaining them, meanwhile most normal users simply have everything they say go straight out to all of their contacts, work associates, and often anyone with a search engine. Commenting on Facebook-powered forums does the same thing to those average users, so more times than not someone's forum-shared opinion on Greek austerity goes out to everyone you know, rather than people who might actually be interested in that opinion (or even more frequently, causes people to just avoid those forums).
Google+ very clearly lays out these perceived flaws and claims to have a fun and elegant solution. I'm not in the beta, so I have no idea if they do or not, but as a marketing pitch it's about the only way to attack a market where there's an entrenched player with a near monopoly.
Your article, meanwhile, was written as if you have no understanding of what a product launch is or who it's targetted at. Furthermore it comes across as vindictive and petty, as if your grandmother where run over by a Google delivery truck last week and you're still pissed about it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a369ccadcbbde0f040000JoshTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:16:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a369ccadcbbde0f040000
For disclosure, I'm a former Facebook engineer and own shares in both Facebook and Google.
That said, I just got access to the Google+ "field trial" and have to say it looks very well-engineered. The design is impressively clean and navigation feels very smooth.
Though I have only played with it briefly, the "Hangout" feature (group video chat) seems like it has potential to be a killer social app.
The heavy use of HTML5 is sweet.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3437cadcbbfb07210000Jason MarsTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:06:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a3437cadcbbfb07210000
Wow, this is the first time I've read an article on SAI that made me consider not reading SAI. This article sounds like something I'd read in my Facebook news feed, not a Journalist's account of a launch. I'm starting to wonder if Facebook put you up to this, or if there is some conflict of interest. I wont get into why this is post is poor at best. I'll just recommend editing/deleting this post, for your guys own credibility. If you want to slam Google+, simply do some research and find reasonable flaws to lambast.
Cheers,
Jasonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a33124bd7c8292f0b0000VetinaryTue, 28 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a33124bd7c8292f0b0000
Pageviews... nothing more... Henry, this is a pathetic article..http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a328f49e2ae084d050000Louis IgraTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:59:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a328f49e2ae084d050000
Google+ is insanely beautiful. The UI makes Facebook look like a past century joke. Very promising.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a30f0ccd1d51f0f000000Humbert HumbertTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:52:16 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a30f0ccd1d51f0f000000
I believe it will be more successful than Bing or Ping.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2f5049e2ae4d41160000launchsmaunchTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:45:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2f5049e2ae4d41160000
I'm not sure why you would get so emotional about the launch. Why not focus on ways Google can leverage its products and reach to try to break down Facebook's network effects. I would be more interested in hearing how Gmail and mobile location-based products can be leveraged to make +1 more useful than Facebook. Facebook is way behind in local, they readily admit it, a big vulnerability when going head to head with Google I think.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2f1e49e2aea141190000MattTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:44:30 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2f1e49e2aea141190000
I just visited that site. It's UI and color scheme are offensive. It neither looks reputable, practical, or useful in the sense that I enjoy my eyesight and want to keep it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2ad049e2aeab40000000MattTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:26:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2ad049e2aeab40000000
Sorry I want to be very clear - I have no stake in Google's success or failure and don't really have an allegiance to the social networking initiatives of either company.
My issue stems from the snarky and lazy discourse pushed by "experts" whenever a product is released in the market. Really, Justin Paterno? You think Google's release of a social networking product we've never seen is even remotely comparable to Microsoft's release of Bing?
It's the very definition of lazy. No one's even played with +1 yet. I'm not defending the product; I'm attacking the intellectually empty snark.
Facebook's current issues are GLARING. Problems in which investors of a $70B company have no idea even exist. Maybe a real competitor entering the fray isn't the worst thing in the world for them.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a28acccd1d5e17d080000OnlyMeWorld1Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:17:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a28acccd1d5e17d080000
Sorry Google, but people hate both you and Facebook! Both companies continue to collect an infinite amount of information about it's users having a total disregard for privacy rights, whether it's users choose to or not! Google talks about privacy, that's another joke! There is one serious competitor to both Facebook, and now Google so called new social network, ONLYMEWORLD which is experiencing triple digit growth!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a269dcadcbb17730d0000Hugo PenmirTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:08:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a269dcadcbb17730d0000
truthful information:
Google+ Project: It’s Social, It’s Bold, It’s Fun, And It Looks Good — Now For The Hard Part
<a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/google-plus/" target="_blank">http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/google-plus/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a25ac4bd7c8d013340000Hugo penmirTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:04:12 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a25ac4bd7c8d013340000
<a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/google-plus/" target="_blank">http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/google-plus/</a>
Google+ Project: It’s Social, It’s Bold, It’s Fun, And It Looks Good — Now For The Hard Parthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a25224bd7c898132a0000login_obscuraTue, 28 Jun 2011 15:01:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a25224bd7c898132a0000
Well, the Google people are certainly reading this article (as evidenced by praise for a product that most people can't even access). Yahoo employees used to do the same thing until they realized it was futile.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a23d5cadcbb0b71000000HugoTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:56:21 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a23d5cadcbb0b71000000
@ Henry Blodget, trata de ser objetivo en tus articulos y dejar la palabra ¨EMBARRSSING¨ , para cuando de verdad sea necesario.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a23a7ccd1d53972110000Akintayo A. OlusegunTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:55:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a23a7ccd1d53972110000
can someone please recommend a tech blog one can read that is not full of sh*t?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a22e44bd7c8bb13070000HugoTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:52:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a22e44bd7c8bb13070000
@ Henry Blodget Trata de ser más objetivo en tus articulos y dejar de tu utilizar tu ridicula forma de escribir.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a22d3cadcbb2b6b040000Henry BlodgetTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:52:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a22d3cadcbb2b6b040000
I'm emotional about this. Google is filled with brilliant people. I expect better from them.
This is about the launch, not the product. At first glance, the product looks like a "greatest hits of 10 years of social." If they can find a way to work it into the Google experience without forcing people to sign up for it, maybe it can work.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2280cadcbb5a6b260000MattTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:50:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a2280cadcbb5a6b260000
Completely disagree on the praise and weight given to that ridiculous tweet comparing this release to Bing vs. Google.
Google's search - aside from hiccups with a few companies finding ways to game search - is a nearly perfect product for what it's used for. It shows quick, relevant results and directs me to where I want to go. It's minimalist, smart, and the features baked in are practical. (Maps, Shopping, Weather, Movie times, etc.)
Facebook is not nearly as efficient for social networking as Google is for search. Consider...
1) Facebook's search function is broken out of the box. Irrelevant people, pages, and applications are littered in the results.
2) Facebook's App process is broken out of the box. I have to go to the apps page, click add, select the page I want it to go, load it, THEN get started? Where's the drag-and-drop interface?
Additionally, many of the apps are broken and not responsive. Zero quality control.
3) Loose, lazy control over what appears in the feed with no sorting capability. All it allows me to do is hide people outright. No filtering between statuses and profile udpates, clunky group filtering.
Facebook's core functionality is social networking. It gets the job done, but in no way is it as efficient as Google's Search is to search. I mean it's not even in the same ballpark.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a21a7ccd1d53d72050000CraigTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:47:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a21a7ccd1d53d72050000
Poll: Will Google+ be an epic fail like Wave and Buzz?
<a href="http://www.wepolls.com/p/884244/Will-Google" target="_blank">http://www.wepolls.com/p/884244/Will-Google</a>'s-new-social-venture-Google+-be-epic-fail-like-Wave-&amp;-Buzzhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a20c549e2ae401f510000bernie lomaxTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:43:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a20c549e2ae401f510000
So I can have my pictures automatically upload, videoconference for free, and control my information and this is a bad thing?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1ffb49e2ae2e1f520000NickTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:39:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1ffb49e2ae2e1f520000
Because this article could have been written two weeks ago, with only the "knowledge" that, because Wave and Buzz failed miserably, anything social Google does is a failure and "embarrassing." And speaking of which, stop using "embarrassing" so much. It's embarrassing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1fd0cadcbb52670e0000CalibratedTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:39:12 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1fd0cadcbb52670e0000
I have two separate issues with this article, the first is with the tone and the second is with the substance.
Speaking to the tone, I would say that it comes off as strangely aggressive and filled with hopeful schadenfreude. Specifically, I would think that a "deeply embarrassing" launch would have either been judged by history as a clear failure or was blatantly botched in some manner. As the launch is all of 90 minutes old, history can't have judged it yet. And, to my eye, their blog post was clear and professional, devoid of hoopla, and interesting. Where is the "deep embarrassment" in that?
Regarding the substance, the article seemed very anxious to dismiss the product. There are some interesting features in Google+ that Facebook doesn't include (Sparks, Huddle), and there are some other UI elements that make accessing content easier than navigating to Facebook. On that last point, I'd love if I could see Facebook notifications within my Gmail or Reader window; with Google+ I can.
This isn't to say that Google+ will be the torpedo that sinks Facebook. All I'm saying is that this article seemed oddly enthusiastic about trashing a new product that deserves thoughtful attention. And, before dismissing it as a pathetic failure, it would also probably help if you had used the product.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1d7449e2ae2e1f250000coolrepublicaTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:29:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1d7449e2ae2e1f250000
I don't think it's embarrassing. I saw the video demos and they look very promising. They took all of Facebook's failings and they improved on them. Their problem is people are shallow by nature. they go by what's on the surface and google plus doesn't look very beautiful. Google tries to make everything look like the google home page and that doesn't work for everything. They need better aesthetician on their team.
They need to add developers to the program to make games and such (because people love to waste time) and they will be OK. They may not kill facebook, but they have a decent shot at making waves. And who knows 3 years from now, you will be Facebook who. lolhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1d3d49e2ae2e1f080000Jon HookTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:28:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1d3d49e2ae2e1f080000
Wow...any article that repeatedly uses biased terms like "humiliating" and "embarassing" a mere few hours after an announcement is made has to include some bias. Can you honestly tell me that you've carefully thought through this announcment and all of its years long implications and come to this strong a conclusion? Why don't you sleep on it and realize that this, along with +1, are incremental steps in utlimately building a social space within Google. No one announcement is going to put a major dent in Facebook or supplant it, so trying to interpret this announcement as a game changer is just silly.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1cf0ccd1d5316c0f0000Henry BlodgetTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:26:56 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1cf0ccd1d5316c0f0000
I didn't pronounce it "dead." I ridiculed the language Google used to launch it (which deserved to be ridiculed.)
But based on that language, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it were soon dead.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1c6149e2aee815320000Bob R. 2Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:24:33 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1c6149e2aee815320000
"+" has features of WAVE and BUZZ, but, rolled into a consumer friendly package to gradually adopt.
It may live, or it may die, but, pretending to know at this point is absurd (and, pure ego, nothing more).
The brilliance is that Users can gradually evolve to use more and more of the features, they don't have to "join" anything or compete with dedicated time on social networks. It's, dare I use the term, "organic."
Pronouncing something dead before it's been born or used is just plain stupid. If I want that kind of subjective non-analysis, I can read that elsewhere.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1bd949e2aed0170b0000Henry BlodgetTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:22:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1bd949e2aed0170b0000
Oh? How about explaining why the launch isn't exactly as described? If I'm missing something, happy to amend.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1a2dccd1d590640f0000CalibratedTue, 28 Jun 2011 14:15:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e0a1a2dccd1d590640f0000
i was considering writing a reasoned response to this petty little article, but I'll settle for this instead:
SAI -1